More classified emails on Clinton server

[Astra.]

26 minutes ago, Why not said:

Astra, the thing that really gets me is that if me, you or anyone here was under investigation by the FBI and we wiped clean our computers and smashed our phones after the were subpoenaed, WE WOULD BE IN JAIL. If she didn't even get her hand slapped for that I doubt she will ever hear the gated door slam behind her.

Unfortunately. 

Yep, I totally agree as we would be thrown into jail. The woman certainly has a hide as thick as an elephant...there's no doubt about it. The question is, what is it about her that makes her untouchable. I can't help but wonder, as who might be possibly protecting her and indeed her family, but why?..I think there is a lot more to the Clinton's than meets the eye...and for some reason James Comey knows things about them, and was apart of it. The whole email thing was way to weird...not to mention the unusual election. There was a lot going on that just didn't seem to add up IMHO.    

[Glockornothing]

3 hours ago, Astra. said:

Yep, I totally agree as we would be thrown into jail. The woman certainly has a hide as thick as an elephant...there's no doubt about it. The question is, what is it about her that makes her untouchable. I can't help but wonder, as who might be possibly protecting her and indeed her family, but why?..I think there is a lot more to the Clinton's than meets the eye...and for some reason James Comey knows things about them, and was apart of it. The whole email thing was way to weird...not to mention the unusual election. There was a lot going on that just didn't seem to add up IMHO.    

Either everyone is afraid of making the Clinton death list, or she has incriminating information on them.

[Why not]

6 hours ago, Astra. said:

Yep, I totally agree as we would be thrown into jail. The woman certainly has a hide as thick as an elephant...there's no doubt about it. The question is, what is it about her that makes her untouchable. I can't help but wonder, as who might be possibly protecting her and indeed her family, but why?..I think there is a lot more to the Clinton's than meets the eye...and for some reason James Comey knows things about them, and was apart of it. The whole email thing was way to weird...not to mention the unusual election. There was a lot going on that just didn't seem to add up IMHO.    

I remember as far back as the 1980's hearing that there is a government inside the government that actually runs everything. I always thought it was from people who had way too much time to think about things and a good imagination.

I'm beginning to think I was not open minded enough.

[Astra.]

1 hour ago, Why not said:

I remember as far back as the 1980's hearing that there is a government inside the government that actually runs everything. I always thought it was from people who had way too much time to think about things and a good imagination.

I'm beginning to think I was not open minded enough.

Yeah, I'm not one to get all tied up into conspiracy theories. But when it comes down to it, I think it's only natural to query things and become suspicious of how things played out concerning Clinton / Comey / and thousands of her lost emails that she and others had obviously planned to destroy. Why she was allowed to walk unscathed, is anybodies guess. I suspect there were certain deals done behind closed doors, and of course the public will never be told the truth. Anyway, I'm sure she's bound to make a lot more money due to her newly launched book. I'm sure her book will do well by her most avid and die-hard supporters who'll purchase it. The old gal has got more lives than a cat....that's for sure ..

[Likely Guy]

20 hours ago, Kurzweil said:

Seriously. Are all these people there to do nothing? Days and days go by but countless people in positions of importance are invisible. Will there be a justice day and if so will we hear about it.

Justice is only seen to be done when the politicians we are against are indicted.

Everything else we see to be either a 'travesty of justice' if they aren't, or a 'witch hunt' if they are and we are in favour of them.

[Likely Guy]

8 hours ago, Glockornothing said:

Either everyone is afraid of making the Clinton death list, or she has incriminating information on them.

Save that for a conspiracy thread.

[Kurzweil]

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

Justice is only seen to be done when the politicians we are against are indicted.

Everything else we see to be either a 'travesty of justice' if they aren't, or a 'witch hunt' if they are and we are in favour of them.

I can agree somewhat but I don't care who's who. My liberties would have been taken away long before it became a news story. What is happening here is 100 percent BS. For God sakes Hillary is doing a book tour....my favorite line of any political debate was Donald saying to Hillary "you should be behind bars"

[ChrLzs]

I've not responded to this as I am awaiting the new (or old) evidence - let's see the illegal/damaging/criminal emails.  Or are the new allegations not being investigated?  Did none of Clinton's naughty emails actually result in anything bad, and none of her recipients came forward?  Please do remember that emails are a two way communication system, and the originators deletion of that copy doesn't make the recipients copies disappear, nor does it affect any subsequent illegal actions arising from the emails..........

Surely the issue here is what damage was done, what illegality is there?  From ANY side....  If none of the recipients are going to dob on the email 'offenders' and nothing is uncovered by them diligent LEA's of the US, then gee, perhaps nobody deserves to go to jail.  Yet.

 

Gosh, I watch all dem dere NCIS-y programs on TV, and they track down everything....  you mean they aren't that good after all?

[Merc14]

I don't think that they will go after Clinton for her emails again, that is over IMHO.  That she was guilty of breaking the law is beyond argument,  She had classified material on an unsecured server and that makes her guilty, period.  Intent to do harm or to hide it, etc, is not required for the person possessing the classified material.  Anyone who wants to argue that is welcome as I know this law very well (receive training about this annually).  What they do want to know is the how and why of her not being prosecuted or punished in any way?  What was Lynch doing on that plane with Bill Clinton and how could Comey sit before congress and list her transgressions only to say she is innocent?  Also, when did he decide there would be no prosecution and how did it fall to him to do this anyways as it is NOT his role  in federal law enforcement to decide whether to prosecute or not.

What I do think is coming is a case against the Clinton Foundation and its ties to the Secretary of State's office when Hillary was serving in that post.  She was ordered by Obama to cut all links with the Clinton Foundation when she took office and she obviously did n not do that.   That there was pay to play public corruption going on is obvious to most people and that should lead to charges of public corruption.  

[+DieChecker]

On 10/1/2017 at 9:27 AM, Astra. said:

Yep, I totally agree as we would be thrown into jail. The woman certainly has a hide as thick as an elephant...there's no doubt about it. The question is, what is it about her that makes her untouchable. I can't help but wonder, as who might be possibly protecting her and indeed her family, but why?..I think there is a lot more to the Clinton's than meets the eye...and for some reason James Comey knows things about them, and was apart of it. The whole email thing was way to weird...not to mention the unusual election. There was a lot going on that just didn't seem to add up IMHO.    

I thought it was because Comey, Obama, Lynch, and just about everyone else on the Dem team thought that HuffPo was correct and it was a Sure Thing for her to win. Comey, et al, were concerned for their job futures.

Why they aren't going after her post-election? I don't know... Maybe because she is now a washed up has been??

[Merc14]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought it was because Comey, Obama, Lynch, and just about everyone else on the Dem team thought that HuffPo was correct and it was a Sure Thing for her to win. Comey, et al, were concerned for their job futures.

Why they aren't going after her post-election? I don't know... Maybe because she is now a washed up has been??

I haven't heard about them canceling the investigation into the Clinton Foundation

 

[Astra.]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Why they aren't going after her post-election? I don't know... Maybe because she is now a washed up has been??

Yeah, even if Clinton is now perceived by many as being stale news and washed up...it's certainly not enough reason to stop properly investigating her and those associated with her. Fingers crossed that the investigation into her foundation just doesn't 'quietly go away'....as I bet there are many who would like it to. 

 

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I haven't heard about them canceling the investigation into the Clinton Foundation

 How is progress going ?....I can't seem to find any current updates. 

[Merc14]

54 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Yeah, even if Clinton is now perceived by many as being stale news and washed up...it's certainly not enough reason to stop properly investigating her and those associated with her. Fingers crossed that the investigation into her foundation just doesn't 'quietly go away'....as I bet there are many who would like it to. 

 

 How is progress going ?....I can't seem to find any current updates. 

The Department of Justice, including the FBI, until Obama, never talked about current, ongoing cases so this is normal, except of the Obama era.

[Astra.]

37 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The Department of Justice, including the FBI, until Obama, never talked about current, ongoing cases so this is normal, except of the Obama era.

Oh I see...'The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.'

So basically, it could take months or even 'years' to investigate, then make a case.. before presenting it to the Department of Justice, whereby only taking a proper course of action if needed ?.....hmm! this process could indeed take a very long time then, before any information becomes available. To be honest, I find that rather frustrating. 

[Astra.]

On 02/10/2017 at 8:54 PM, ChrLzs said:

I've not responded to this as I am awaiting the new (or old) evidence - let's see the illegal/damaging/criminal emails.  Or are the new allegations not being investigated?  Did none of Clinton's naughty emails actually result in anything bad, and none of her recipients came forward?  Please do remember that emails are a two way communication system, and the originators deletion of that copy doesn't make the recipients copies disappear, nor does it affect any subsequent illegal actions arising from the emails..........

Surely the issue here is what damage was done, what illegality is there?  From ANY side....  If none of the recipients are going to dob on the email 'offenders' and nothing is uncovered by them diligent LEA's of the US, then gee, perhaps nobody deserves to go to jail.  Yet.

Ok, apart from this recent batch of classified emails. Weren't you just a little suspicious when it was found that she had deleted over 30,000 private emails (or so she claimed were private) from her personal server back in 2015 ?.....surely 30,000+ of them could not have all been of a private nature eg; daughters wedding, mothers funeral etc...

ChrLzs don't forget either, that she claimed these emails were deleted before she was subpoenaed...in which was a blatant lie, (among others) because according to the FBI it had been found that the emails had been deleted 3 weeks after she had received the subpoena. Soo! even more warning bells, that she had something to hide. 

Also, with the back-and-forth correspondence (emailing) between her and the recipients... how would the FBI know who the recipients were, since she'd wiped the server clean ? 

Another thing is, whomever the person(s) that she was corresponding with (before she deleted the emails) then why would they blow the whistle on her, when they too were apart of it hence the corresponding by email. Whatever she had to hide, I would imagine that they would too.  

Anyway's, she's been allowed to get away with things so far...so lets wait and see if she finally has her day in court. Not about to hold my breath at this point though. 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Astra.

[Merc14]

9 hours ago, Astra. said:

Oh I see...'The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.'

So basically, it could take months or even 'years' to investigate, then make a case.. before presenting it to the Department of Justice, whereby only taking a proper course of action if needed ?.....hmm! this process could indeed take a very long time then, before any information becomes available. To be honest, I find that rather frustrating. 

Personally I think the email stuff is dead now that train left the station.  Comey and Lynch may face some trouble for putting the fix in but who knows.  The Clinton Foundation case, if it is still under investigation, will be a huge public corruption prosecution, maybe the largest in US history .  Public corruption cases, a specialty of the FBI, are notoriously difficult to prosecute and these are the Clintons so you can bet they will have every "t" crossed and every "i" dotted.  As of last November they had five different field offices investigating the case, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Little Rock and Washington DC, so I'd be surprised if it suddenly was just turned off.   http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/15/new-hillary-clinton-emails-show-clinton-foundation-state-dept-corruption-judicial-watch

[Almighty Evan]

On 9/15/2017 at 2:01 AM, and then said:

This reprehensible person epitomizes the corruption in our government today.  Until she is tried and imprisoned, I will never trust this government again.

Thankfully she isn't a Republican, or she would have been in REAL trouble.

[ChrLzs]

13 hours ago, Astra. said:

Ok, apart from this recent batch of classified emails. Weren't you just a little suspicious when it was found that she had deleted over 30,000 private emails (or so she claimed were private) from her personal server back in 2015 ?.....surely 30,000+ of them could not have all been of a private nature eg; daughters wedding, mothers funeral etc...

Owch.  Astra, isn't this just a version of the same thing that UFO=alienz claimants tell us - namely that it must be true because of volume of reports?  In fact, it's even worse as we don't even have the 'reports'.  You can't have one rule of evidence in one place and then a different one simply because you dislike the person..

13 hours ago, Astra. said:

ChrLzs don't forget either, that she claimed these emails were deleted before she was subpoenaed...in which was a blatant lie, (among others) because according to the FBI it had been found that the emails had been deleted 3 weeks after she had received the subpoena. Soo! even more warning bells, that she had something to hide. 

Also, with the back-and-forth correspondence (emailing) between her and the recipients... how would the FBI know who the recipients were, since she'd wiped the server clean ? 

Another thing is, whomever the person(s) that she was corresponding with (before she deleted the emails) then why would they blow the whistle on her, when they too were apart of it hence the corresponding by email. Whatever she had to hide, I would imagine that they would too.  

Anyway's, she's been allowed to get away with things so far...so lets wait and see if she finally has her day in court. Not about to hold my breath at this point though. 

I agree, but the obvious problem with all that is you can speculate all you like about what might have been, but the only actual crime so far is simply deletion of emails/'evidence'. If the emails are truly unrecoverable, then the only way that something will come from that is via an email recipient.  If they all stay mute, and there is no other evidence of illegality, then I'm sorry, but the 'crime' (if any) effectively didn't happen.

Correct me if wrong, but I think no-one in any past administrations has been prosecuted on just the basis of deleting emails.  Having private email accounts and using them for gov stuff has been uncovered multiple times, despite it being against the 'rules'..

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Owch.  Astra, isn't this just a version of the same thing that UFO=alienz claimants tell us - namely that it must be true because of volume of reports?  In fact, it's even worse as we don't even have the 'reports'.  You can't have one rule of evidence in one place and then a different one simply because you dislike the person..

I agree, but the obvious problem with all that is you can speculate all you like about what might have been, but the only actual crime so far is simply deletion of emails/'evidence'. If the emails are truly unrecoverable, then the only way that something will come from that is via an email recipient.  If they all stay mute, and there is no other evidence of illegality, then I'm sorry, but the 'crime' (if any) effectively didn't happen.

Correct me if wrong, but I think no-one in any past administrations has been prosecuted on just the basis of deleting emails.  Having private email accounts and using them for gov stuff has been uncovered multiple times, despite it being against the 'rules'..

 

The technician who did the wiping said he performed the act between  March 25-31,  The Benghazzi committee ordered the emails preserved and turned over on March 3 2015 and teh subpoena was sent March 4, 2015..   How is she speculating?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/probe-targets-clinton-contractor-who-deleted-email/article/2601078

The FBI summary report said the PRN technician told agents he performed the deletions "sometimes between March 25-31, 2015."

The events of March 2015 are shaping up as critical in the investigation of the email affair. At the beginning of the month, March 2, the New York Times reported the existence of the secret Clinton email system. The next day, the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter ordering Clinton to preserve all emails that might be relevant to its investigation. The day after that, March 4, the committee sent a subpoena. By the end of the month, March 31, the deletion and server-wiping had taken place.

 

[ChrLzs]

Yes, Merc, but please read it a bit more carefully - Astra was speculating on the content of the emails..

I thought I made it quite clear when I said this:

Quote

.. you can speculate all you like about what might have been, but the only actual crime so far is simply deletion of emails/'evidence'

 

[DarkHunter]

13 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, Merc, but please read it a bit more carefully - Astra was speculating on the content of the emails..

I thought I made it quite clear when I said this:

 

From what was gathered from her email server she had a little over 2,000 classified emails on it.

"A batch of Mrs. Clinton’s email released this month included at least two with confidential information. That brings the total number of confidential documents that passed through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server to 2,083."

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/13/hillary-clinton-email-case-expands-as-fbi-finds-mo/

"

• More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. (Most emails were retroactively deemed to contain classified information by the U.S. agencies from which the information originated.)
• Some of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified. Comey did not provide a specific number.

“everal thousand work-related emails” were not turned over to the State Department in 2014, but were recovered by the FBI. Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.”

"

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/

It's pretty clear Clinton had classified emails of her unsecured personal email server and she should of been prosecuted for it.

No idea why there is a line now crossing out parts of this post and using my phone I can't seem to fix it easily or quickly.

Edited October 6, 2017 by DarkHunter

[Merc14]

47 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, Merc, but please read it a bit more carefully - Astra was speculating on the content of the emails..

I thought I made it quite clear when I said this:

 

 

You did not make it clear and you should've addressed it directly rather than allude to  some UFO woo believer nonsense.  The two have nothing in common.

Given the sheer amount of lies the women has told re. her emails, the FBI's director's condemnation of her actions re. the emails, the ever increasing number of classified emails being discovered and the fact that she said she was corresponding with her husband and Bill has stated, on numerous occasions, that he doesn't use email, then I would think speculating something underhanded was going on is the reasonable action and a jury would most likely come to the same conclusion. 

As Trey Gowdy said, any competent prosecutor would have  prosecuted Clinton for  mishandling of classified information as she clearly showed intent, as illustrated in Comey's below conversation with the now under investigation Comey, and BTW, intent is clearly not a requirement for prosecution of violating this law anyways:

GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?

COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

GOWDY: Exactly. Intent, and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?

COMEY: Right.

GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt, and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. And you would be arguing, in addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme: when it started, when it ended, and the number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

You would also probably, under “common scheme or plan,” argue the “burn bags” of daily calendar entires, or the missing daily calendar entires as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email is no place to sand and receive classified information. And you’re right: an average person does know not to do that. This is no average person: this is a former First Lady, a former United States Senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since [Thomas] Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ’08, but he says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, she kept these private e-mails for almost two years, and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private e-mail account.

So you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of office; thousands of what we now know to be classified e-mails, some of which were classified at the time; one of her more frequent e-mailed comrades was, in fact, hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was; and this scheme took place over long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records — and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent?

You say she was “extremely careless,” but not intentionally so. Now, you and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce, “On this day, I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this day.” It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence — or, if you’re Congress, and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for “gross negligence.”

The statute to which Gowdy referred is the one under which Comey said the FBI had investigated Clinton: namely, 18 U.S.C. section 793(f), which requires only a showing of “gross negligence,” not intent, in mis-handling classified materials.

Gowdy is a highly successful prosecutor and knows what he  is talking about.  Also, using  the UFO woo argument to disparage someone on this subject is out of line, the two have nothing in common.  A court case designed to show intent will rarely have direct evidence the criminal stated their intent, as you can read from the above.  By showing a long line of actions that show intent to cover your activities, a prosecutor can prove intent to a reasonable jury.  Everything Hillary did showed intent to cover up her crimes, she  lied, she destroyed evidence, she delayed turning evidence over and refused to turn over electronic evidence when she very easily could have. Now you can argue that none of this is proof she intended to cover her actions and I will cheer you on, as it is a ridiculous stand but feel free.

The only unreasonable actions here are Comey and Lynch's. They gave immunity to several key witnesses and then never interviewed them or demanded evidence.  They then destroyed the key witnesses electronic devices including laptops.  The entire episode was ridiculous and completely corrupt.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-immunized-clinton-aides-laptops-sources-say.html

 

 

[ChrLzs]

I shall simply repeat my statement, as it seems to be unreadable or not able to be understood.  I'll even repeat the exact words of Astra's post that I was quite politely and correctly addressing:

Quote

Astra:
surely 30,000+ of them could not have all been of a private nature

Quote

ChrLzs:
you can speculate all you like about what might have been

If Astra was not speculating about the emails content, well, then I can't read English.  If there were particular crimes that were worthy of prosecution amongst these emails (they were deleted and wiped, yet she handed them over?  ..whatever.. I'm losing the will to live), then what were they?  And if she is not being prosecuted despite them being so serious, then perhaps you should:

a - take your anger out on those who aren't prosecuting, and ask yourself why, with Trump in power, this isn't being actively pursued..

b - be patient, and when the investigations are completed and crimes beyond what I first pointed out are revealed, and will repeat AGAIN below, then applaud with glee!

I then correctly said:

Quote

the only actual crime so far is simply deletion of emails/'evidence'

Your reply here, simply says that the emails were deleted/wiped.  Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said.....

And your next reply again refers to her 'mishandling' gov't information, and quotes people talking about that - no other specific crimes seem to be mentioned.

 

If I missed something, please quote the bits that refer to indictable crimes beyond the emails/deletion.

For about the hundredth time, I am not defending Clinton, nor am I angrily slanging off at Astra (besides, she's a tough young boot and will defend herself if necessary, I'm sure!)...  But surely it is just a teensy bit better to have direct evidence of criminality, than to make statements like these:

Quote

A court case designed to show intent will rarely have direct evidence the criminal stated their intent, as you can read from the above.  By showing a long line of actions that show intent to cover your activities, a prosecutor can prove intent to a reasonable jury.  Everything Hillary did showed intent to cover up her crimes

WHICH crimes?  Be specific.  And let's assume that this case 'designed to prove intent' (que?) succeeded, what the heck does that mean?  onto to stage 2 where they prosecute her for intention, not actual crimes?  I truly do not understand this..

Sorry, but the more I see of this, the more I think it is rather analogous to UFO=alienz.  We're always asking for evidence beyond reasonable doubt for alienz visiting earth - but is intent enough?  I'm sure there are alienz out there, and if technological, would love to visit earth....

The point which I made at the start, and which I am sticking to, is that many people in various administrations dating back decades have done the wrong thing with private email accounts.  Sure, Clinton appears to have taken that to a new level, and I would happily agree that most likely she has done other stuff well worthy of prosecution, but that *speculation* is worthless *until* the specific crimes are properly outlined and proven..  As I said earlier, the crimes that are proven to date are that she ran private email account/s, and used a private server to do so, and deleted emails or got others to do so.

If you have more to add to that - ie actual prosecutable crimes she has committed, then I'm all ears.  But none of the posts above seem to be getting us anywhere....

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

but the only actual crime so far is simply deletion of emails/'evidence'.

Given her position as Sec of State (#4 in line to the Presidency), and given her actions regarding the matter... Isn't that enough to deserve punishment? There were classified documents on that server. That is 100% proven. And, Sec Clinton's defense? Under questioning? In a written (signed) statement to Congress? "I don't recall.", on 21 out of 25 questions....

Would anyone in the Media put up with that from Trump? Would anyone be naive enough to dismiss Trump's statements in such a situation? Yet... Grandma Hillary gets off scott free......

Edited October 6, 2017 by DieChecker

[Astra.]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Owch.  Astra, isn't this just a version of the same thing that UFO=alienz claimants tell us - namely that it must be true because of volume of reports?  In fact, it's even worse as we don't even have the 'reports'.  You can't have one rule of evidence in one place and then a different one simply because you dislike the person..

Why the 'ouch'...did I slap you ? 

I have to say ChrLzs that I do find it rather amusing that you felt the need to go with the UFO=alienz angle to try and make your point of sorts in a political thread. Even so, it's very original, so I'll give you that .. 

 

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I agree, but the obvious problem with all that is you can speculate all you like about what might have been, but the only actual crime so far is simply deletion of emails/'evidence'. If the emails are truly unrecoverable, then the only way that something will come from that is via an email recipient.  If they all stay mute, and there is no other evidence of illegality, then I'm sorry, but the 'crime' (if any) effectively didn't happen.

Well, I don't quite understand why you would say that I was only speculating, when in fact Hillary Clinton did say that she had deleted over 30,000 emails that she claimed were all 'personal'...hence, why I had asked you earlier weren't you just a little suspicious? Also, of course the emails are now unrecoverable, as that's exactly what she wanted. Don't forget, she also has a background in law, so she knows how to get around things. She is a very manipulating woman in my opinion ChrLzs.  

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/

Anyway's, it seems that Merc has pretty much covered and explained things far better than I probably could have. So thank you Merc. 

  

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Correct me if wrong, but I think no-one in any past administrations has been prosecuted on just the basis of deleting emails.  Having private email accounts and using them for gov stuff has been uncovered multiple times, despite it being against the 'rules'..

Yes, but this woman wasn't just any ordinary government public servant who went against the rules. She once held a very important and high powered position in government which she obviously took advantage of and abused in more ways than one. Also, and as far as I'm concerned, James Comey was weak and the wrong person to lead the investigation. He became far too politicised and arrogant, and I certainly blame him for allowing her to get off as easily as she did by making such a mess of the case. It was all rather bizarre. Also, I didn't really agree 'in the way' that Trump had fired him...but at the end of the day one had to question what Comey's motives were really about (all very confusing) so he basically deserved to be ousted.